M/S New Microsoate Computer vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s New Microsoate Computer, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 03.02.2023, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay. The original order being appealed against was dated 12.02.2021. The Appellate Authority noted that Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) allows filing an appeal within three months, with a further one-month period for delay condonation. The authority also considered the Supreme Court's suo motu order in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and allowed filing within ninety days from 01.03.2022. Consequently, the appeal should have been filed by 29.05.2022. Even considering the one-month condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022. However, the appeal was filed on 31.01.2023, over 216 days after the extended Supreme Court limitation period expired.

Held

The Court held that it found no reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that this jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised when alternative remedies are available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing those remedies within the stipulated time. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner filed the appeal on 31.01.2023, which was significantly beyond the period prescribed by Section 107 of the BGST Act, even after considering the extensions granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. The Supreme Court's directions allowed for appeals to be filed by 29.05.2022, and with the condonation period under Section 107(4) of the BGST Act, the appeal should have been filed by 28.06.2022. The delay of over 216 days was deemed unacceptable. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court will not interfere under Article 226 when statutory remedies exist and the petitioner has failed to pursue them diligently within the prescribed timelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay, considering the pandemic-related extensions granted by the Supreme Court and the provisions for condonation of delay under Section 107 of the BGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner likely argued that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, taking into account the extraordinary circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. They would have contended that the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider the extended limitation period and the possibility of condoning the delay. The petitioner might have also argued that the Appellate Authority's order was arbitrary or unjust. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar through the Commissioner of Commercial State Taxes and other tax authorities, would have argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory timelines for filing an appeal and seeking condonation of delay. They would have emphasized that the Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the BGST Act and the Supreme Court's directions, finding the delay to be excessive and without satisfactory reasons. The revenue would have likely pointed out the petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing their alternate remedy.